Finally, a highly credible scholar of Egyptology wrote a book about the Book of Abraham and the papyri: The Joseph Smith Papyri: A Complete Edition. He even provides the various translations to Egyptian writings on top of his own original ones!
Before you form an unsolicited opinion of him, just check out the first link you find when you Google his name--Robert Ritner. In fact, here's the summary you'll read:
Robert K. Ritner is currently Professor of Egyptology at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and was from 1991-1996 the first Marilyn M. Simpson Assistant Professor of Egyptology at Yale University. Dr. Ritner specializes in Roman, Hellenistic, Late and Third Intermediate Period (Libyan and Nubian) Egypt and is the author of the book The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, and over 100 publications on Egyptian religion, magic, medicine, language and literature, as well as social and political history. He has lectured extensively on each of these topics throughout the United States, Europe and Egypt. In association with The Field Museum of Chicago, Dr. Ritner was the academic advisor to two recent British Museum exhibits “Cleopatra of Egypt: From History to Myth,” and “Eternal Egypt,” and he has served as consultant and lecturer for the travelling Cairo Museum exhibit “Quest for Immortality: Treasures of Ancient Egypt.”
This book might just throw it in the bag for one of the most damning bits of evidence against Mormonism.
Someone should buy it for $80.
Don't just look at Ritner, look at the other contributors. This book includes essays by noted scholars Christopher Woods, Associate Professor of Sumerology, University of Chicago (“The Practice of Egyptian Religion at ‘Ur of the Chaldees’”), Marc Coenen, Egyptian Studies Ph. D., University of Leuven, Belgium (“The Ownership and Dating of Certain Joseph Smith Papyri”), and H. Michael Marquardt, author of The Revelations of Joseph Smith: Text and Commentary (“Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Papers: A History”). It contains twenty-eight photographic plates, including color images of the primary papyri (with corrected alignment for Papyrus Joseph Smith 2) and other relevant items.
ReplyDeleteOpenminded;
ReplyDeleteFrom your book link.
Now, for the first time, the surviving papyri have been translated into English in their entirety. In analyzing and translating the ancient texts, Robert K. Ritner, foremost American scholar of Egyptology, has determined that they were prepared for deceased men and women in Thebes during the Greco-Roman period. They have nothing to do with Abraham, Joseph, or a planet called Kolob, as Smith had claimed.
You do realize that Ritner did not translate the papyri Joseph smith used to translate the Book of Abraham, correct? Joseph Smith had *lots* of manuscripts to choose from and there's a strong conclusion that the manuscripts that have survived are not the ones Joseph Smith used to translate into the Book of Abraham. So it actually makes sense that "the surviving papyri " does not speak of abraham, Kolob, or anything else in the Book of Abraham.
So, where's the "massive hit" you advertise?
The evidence clearly shows that Joseph Smith thought that the sen-sen papyrus, currently owned by the Church, was the text of the opening chapters of the Book of Abraham. Mormon Apologists realizing that this fact really is a "massive hit" have spun the disinformation that he never did consider the sen-sen papyrus to be the text of the BOA. This is where the "missing papyrus" theory comes from. Robert Ritner did translate the small sen-sen papyrus so he, in fact, DID translate what Joseph Smith considered to be the text of the opening chapters of the Book of Abraham.
DeleteRight. Well if you're correct (a generously given condition, for now), then the unrepudiated hit will be on the hypocephalus interpretations.
ReplyDeleteBut also, everything points towards the documents being used for Egyptian burial purposes. With that in mind, are you saying the Egyptians randomly threw in what would become the BoA into the mix?
And hi, Darren!
ReplyDeleteWith that in mind, are you saying the Egyptians randomly threw in what would become the BoA into the mix?
ReplyDeleteWhil I think that may be possible I find it highly improbable. I think over time a bunch of Egyptian writings, perhaps with no relation one to another other than funerery procedures, was collected and amog them was placed the writings of what became the Pearl of Great Price for in Egyptian it was most likely a funerery text. However, to a Semitic reader, the story would have been very different. I'm very prone to agree with Kevin L. Barney in his brilliant essay called, The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources. In this essay he shows how Egyptian stories were latter adopted by Semtitic people to tell Semitic stories of morality. he proposes that, perhaps, the story of Abraham was written in Egyptian using Egyptian funerery texts to do so. Combine this with hte fact that Semitic people regularly used Egyptian writings to record various events and I think Barney truly hit onto something very insightful as to the origins of the Book of Abraham.
I read the link. While interesting, this is what I got from it:
ReplyDelete1) Smith butchered the Egyptian, despite a few successes,
2) it's obvious that the text was not penned by Abraham,
3) because of this, we need to find a new way for the BoA to be authentic.
So, he assumed that 1,500 years of transmission of a non-Abrahamic document--that's actually Semitic now that the era is ~200 b.c.--was put into the mix of strictly funerary documents for this mummy. Also, the Semitic origins are supposed to be entirely acceptable under the context these documents came from while also explaining away Smith's obviously false interpretations of the Egyptian facsimiles (which, somehow, are still decidedly written in Egyptian and are put in an entirely Egyptian context that gives us no reason to assume they originate from any other language despite the author wanting us to assume they have a Semitic background).
I can see why this theory has made no headway in Mormon apologetics. Has it even gone past the book you mentioned?
Look, for some time now, this has been how bad it's gotten: Mormons who remain faithful but have examined the BoA issue are giving up on the BoA having anything to do with the papyri or facsimiles at all. They're viewing it more like they view the golden plates: almost entirely irrelevant, because Smith didn't really use the golden plates anyways. He used a seer stone and a hat.
The facsimiles and everything are more "inspiration" for the true document God wanted Smith to reveal, and that's why there's no solid relation between Smith's interpretations of the Egyptian and the actual interpretations of the Egyptian.
And really, you've already cast out Smith's beliefs on the BoA with the Semitic theory anyways. Why not make the jump to the Revealed Text theory?
Openminded;
ReplyDelete1) Smith butchered the Egyptian, despite a few successes,
2) it's obvious that the text was not penned by Abraham,
3) because of this, we need to find a new way for the BoA to be authentic
I've no idea how you reached those conclusions from the article of my link except by scrounding up arguments against the article and against Joseph Smith as well as the Book of Abraham.
So, he assumed that 1,500 years of transmission of a non-Abrahamic document--that's actually Semitic now that the era is ~200 b.c.--was put into the mix of strictly funerary documents for this mummy
Huh? No sir. Barney is saying that it is probable that a Semitic writer wrote in Egyptian or used an Egyptian text to rite about Abraham. That this text was not made up as in a parable but the actualy life of Abraham. Somewhere doewn the line a Semitic person (or persons for all we know) used Egyptian texts to write Semitic stories. Barney sites Hugo Gressman who purports tha Psalms was Egyptian orginally and that the parable of Abraham and Lazurus was orginally Egyptian. In other words, it was common for the ancient Hebrews to use Egyptian to tell their stories. In the case of the Book of Abraham, actual events of Abraham were preserved in Egyptian. It is well known today (long after Joseph Smith's time) that Isreal used the Egyptian script to write their records. Now, as fror the abrahamic texts written in Egyptian getting thrown into the mix with other Egyptian texts, yes, apparently that's what happened. You don't even have to read this article to conclude that but actual accounts from Joseph Smith and others who saw papyri in his home.
Also, the Semitic origins are supposed to be entirely acceptable under the context these documents came from while also explaining away Smith's obviously false interpretations of the Egyptian facsimiles
What false interpretations of the facsimiles? To a non-semitic reader, these facsimiles are purely Egyptian for they are Egyptian writings about an Egyptian funerery service. However, if at one point in time these Egyptian writings were used to tell the story of Abraham, than, again, to the non-semtic reader, it is Egyptian, though to a Semitic reader, as well to an inspired seer of God, they are far more precious for they contain God's eternal truths.
which, somehow, are still decidedly written in Egyptian and are put in an entirely Egyptian context that gives us no reason to assume they originate from any other language despite the author wanting us to assume they have a Semitic background
As Barney demonstrated that this was a practice of ancient Isrealis, yes.
I can see why this theory has made no headway in Mormon apologetics. Has it even gone past the book you mentioned?
LOL, I found it on Jeff Lindsay's LDS faq website.
Mormons who remain faithful but have examined the BoA issue are giving up on the BoA having anything to do with the papyri or facsimiles at all. They're viewing it more like they view the golden plates: almost entirely irrelevant, because Smith didn't really use the golden plates anyways. He used a seer stone and a hat.
Slow down there, Openminded. No faithful LDS is giving up on the Book of Abraham. in fact, the very opposite is true. More advances in the understanding the origin of the Book of Abraham have been made in the last few decades than ever before. Understandingf it has accelerated. Also, Joseph Smith absolutely did use the golden plates to translate the Book of mormon. Where in the world did you come up with the conclusion that he did not? The seer stone Smth used was only part of the translation process. My understanding istat he viewed the plates' writings and then used the seer stone to interpret its meaning through the power of God.
What are you talking about?
I definitely have a lot of responding to do, but I might not have time until a bit later in the day.
ReplyDeleteReal quickly though, are you not familiar with the account of Joseph Smith translating the book by putting the stones in a hat and reading off the words that were "given" to him?
Real quickly though, are you not familiar with the account of Joseph Smith translating the book by putting the stones in a hat and reading off the words that were "given" to him?
ReplyDeleteWhere did those words come from?
(sometimes, I really dislike internet convos)
ReplyDeleteAre you asking for the words of the account or are you saying I was wrong to assume you weren't aware of it?
I was referringto the words Joseph smith received to write down? Did they not come from the golden plates? The process was for Joseph to read the plates, ponder them, then seek God for their translation. So, to say that what Joseph dictated to be written down did not really come from the golden plates is way off the mark. Yes, there was a seer stone for the translation part but the words themselves, or rather, the hieroglyphs which represented the words, came directly from the golden plates.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, the wors Joseph Smith used to translated into English for the Book of Abraham were from papyri he came across through inspired direction.
Well yes, but my point from my poor analogy was that some believe the BoA papyri were inspiration for the real message--and that the words themselves were revelated from God instead of the document. This is (poorly, I apologize) related to how Smith put the seer stones in a hat and received the words without looking directly at the golden plates themselves. Come to look at it, this whole analogy was really misleading. Sorry about that, I'll just live with the shame.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, back to the main subject. What I mean by Mormons backing off from the document is that the "fuller" understanding that has been reached keeps backing away from the original understanding of the document. For example, the Semitic theory backs away from the BoA being a purely Egyptian document (and states that yes, translating from Egyptian just ultimately does not work). As I said earlier, some Mormons ditch the papyri all together and claim it was the catalyst for what would be revealed to Smith.
When I numerically listed my claims, that's what I was talking about. If your accepted theory was the original theory that Smith translated Egyptian text into the BoA, then those were the issues you'd run into (wrong interpretations, a document not written by Abraham, and a need for a new theory).
As for the Semitic theory itself, I guess the test for it would be to see if it could actually be translated Semitically.
What's the situation on Semitic adaptations of Egyptian writing? Candidly, I'm assuming it's hopeless. The facsimiles that Smith translated being used for a Semitic purposes (despite a body of research on similar funerary Egyptian texts) sounds pretty out-of-the-ballpark.
Does your theory have any room to breathe beyond citing other examples where Egyptian was adapted into the Bible? Why should we accept traditionally Egyptian-funerary texts to be Semitically adapted?
This does nothing to attack or disprove Mormonism. My BYU professor in the early 1980s said the exact same thing - that the documents themselves were not direct translations because, translated, they say nothing Joseph said they did. He theorized that Smith was using the manuscripts as a conduit to receive revelation directly from God and when he was "translating," he was receiving revelation. Joseph did not distinguish between the two acts. Obviously, you don't agree, but you have to recognize that mainstream Mormonism has known this for 30+ years. Maybe this was a revelation to you, though. People like you are always eager to look for ways to solve their cognitive dissonance. Just can't leave it alone, can you?
ReplyDeleteYou sound defensive. "People like you" tend to resort to compartmentalizing others when unshakable ideas are at risk.
ReplyDeleteI'm just "that one anti-Mormon who doesn't even know what Mormons really believe these days", aren't I.
Leave your assumptions at the door.
The brunt of the story behind the BoA is that Smith completely fooled his followers on the details. When you read the quotes of his followers and what was written in the History of the Church, everyone falls for the description of these papyri were actually written by Abraham.
Assuming you've kept up with the "mainstream" rebuttals to their beliefs, you'll remember the anachronisms that put this out of the time era Abraham "belongs" to.
And so finally, likely due to the cognitive dissonance I'm so eager to solve these days as well, the apologists completely ditch anything Smith and his follower's ever spoke of, and proclaimed the whole translation attempt to be founded on inspiration alone (and who knows, maybe even a Jewish redactor or two).
I remember when I'd back up the Bible with words like "metaphor", and much like those days, this situation is all about just not being able to let the whole superstition go.
And pardon me if I pretended you believe something you don't. These days, all the apologist responses are sounding the same; poorly attempting to downplay Smith's obviously made-up story about a set of papyri that are purported to have some relation to Abraham while he was in Egypt.
Well, your argument is based on the assumption that Joseph Smith could distinguish between revelation and translation and knew that he was not translating. Consider, for a second, the mere possibility that God placed the words and ideas into Smith's mind while he was looking at these glyphs. If that were the case, he would have believed he was actually translating the words from the page itself and that the words were literally written by Abraham's hand. Thus, it would be reasonable for him to tell people that the words were literally Abraham's.
ReplyDeleteConsider what would have happened if these glyphs completely proved that JS could perfectly translate ancient Egyptian at a time when no one could. Where would the faith be? You wouldn't need it because you would have proof. Isn't it interesting that all the serious and unbiased research on Smith (throw out FARMS and the apologists, throw out the anti-Mormon stuff), his life and his work lands in that middle ground between charlatan and saint? There will never be definitive proof one way or the other, which means that man will have to rely on some other means of knowledge. Faith will always be required - otherwise, mankind would be robbed of their agency.
Again, I stand by my statement that the Book of Abraham did not take a "massive hit" with the release of this book. If anything, the "massive hit" you refer to took place 40+ years ago. Mainstream Mormon academics have understood and taught this for 30 years (even if some apologists kept arguing the older view). This is nothing new.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeletePS you don't seem very "open-minded" if you are unwilling to accept the possibility that JS was receiving revelation and mistook it for translation.
ReplyDeleteOn a related note, when will you be creating your website attacking Jews for believing that the entire Torah was received by Moses at Sinai and he wrote it down word-for-word, even though Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis has definitively shown that the Torah is actually a composite of 4 different source documents (J, D, E, P), which accounts for the repitition, inconsistencies, etc? Oh, that's right. You're not a hermeneutic/biblical scholar dedicated to unbiased research of religious texts. You're a guy with an axe to grind.
We have plenty of examples of Smith when he was translating vs. receiving revelation (easy example, BoM compared to the writings in the Doctrine and Covenants). What you're suggesting is wishful thinking, that God would dupe his first prophet--completely leaving Smith without visions, guidance, etc., in a time when these were plentiful and his reputation was on the line.
ReplyDeleteWe aren't robbed of our agency when presented with definitive proof. People choose what they believe if the facts are standing naked in front of them. You're making a statement that we've all heard before about faith, and it's just an arbitrary statement. Faith will always be required when it comes to deciding what's on the supernatural side.
Let's make a prediction about the response to Smith getting the papyri correct: 1) a major group of people joining Mormonism (I know I would), and 2) a likely minority group of people still sticking to their guns (bibles) and pretending the devil's playing tricks on people or God's testing their faith. The YEC already think dinosaur bones were planted by God and that all of these observations of nature leading us away from biblical explanations are just tests of faith, right in the face of definitive proof.
I'm open to possibilities. But there are many possibilities, and this situation just so closely mimics other failed religious experiments (Mohammed's Islam, the Strangite faith that's almost exactly like Mormonism, the OT, the NT) that I take your defense about as seriously as I do the one's for those (and reject them for many of the reasons I reject Mormonism and Christianity, to address your "related note" diversion. I have no axe to grind, I only do these things online or when asked personally).
It's possible God really did bury dinosaur bones. But there's no merit in possibility when everything is possible with a supernatural God. You could make any claim you wished, just like the other religions have and do.
My research started after hearing the "Joseph's translation isn't real Egyptian" argument for the millionth time. I decided to see if Joseph's translation had merit by itself. So instead of trying to compare his translation to the actual Egyptian I wanted to see if it was internally consistent with itself, if Joseph's translation worked in and of itself.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found surprised me because the translation does work. Joseph's translation is not a correct egyptologically. But his translation of symbols is internally consistent. Meaning the symbol he translates as Abraham is always translated as Abraham, etc. He's not just randomly applying meaning to symbols. This is actually a carefully thought out process.
But the actual papyri are clearly not written by Abraham, because they were written much later than Abraham. The thing is that Joseph believed they were written by Abraham. The reason why is because Joseph Smith possessed a book called Antiquities of Freemasonry. This book described the history of Freemasonry as having descended from God through Adam down to the present day. This book provided additional details to Bible stories and many people at the time believed it was actual history. Joseph Smith had this book and read it. This book contained additional information about the Story of Abraham. This same information is much of what is in the Book of Abraham.
What happened was Joseph saw the symbols on the Papyri and noticed they seemed to depict elements from the Abraham story in Antiquities of Freemasonry. So this reaffirmed in Joseph's mind the truth of the information in Antiquities. Joseph believed he had the actual book of Abraham written by Abraham.
During the translation process Joseph Smith tried to figure out how the symbols were to be interpreted to be the story of Abraham. And he actually got it to work. His translation of the symbols actually worked to translate into the Book of Abraham. This reaffirmed the truth of Antiquities of Freemasonry to him.
The Book of Abraham is entirely a revealed work, it is not an historical work.
This also relates to the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible. Much of the extra material included in the Bible translation comes from Antiquities of Freemasonry.
Joseph Smith obviously believed there was much truth in that book.
For me it doesn't matter if the Book of Abraham is literal or not. I find a lot of truthful messages within its pages and the truth stands by itself, regardless of the vehicle used to convey it.
I should also point out that much of this information I posted was researched by George Miller(his internet name). However we both discovered the internal consistency of the translation independently.
I believe that it is unwise to dismiss the Book of Abraham because it is not what tradition says it is. It is not some made up mumbo jumbo designed to enslave a bunch of weak minded fools. It is a very carefully thought out and reasoned document. Many would consider it inspired of God. One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is truth, regardless of where it comes from. I choose to accept those truths I find in the Book of Abraham regardless of literality of the book.
Just read your article back on your blog about this, too.
ReplyDeleteI can't help but think that you're putting a lot of faith into internal consistency. Smith, being well-versed in Masonry (I didn't know about the Antiquities book, though. It's interesting that you find that as something fascinating while I'm leaning towards a more damning outcome. Just like the story of Noah's Ark, we now have the BoA down to a source document that served as inspiration for the story? I'm sure you can see where a valid skepticism comes in at this point); anyways, Smith would try for internal consistency, wouldn't he? I remember watching a FAIR presentation about how his closest colleagues used ciphers around this time, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if Smith was familiar with them himself.
He's no stranger to making sure symbols have the same meaning across the board. Am I interpreting your argument the wrong way?
Finally, your statement: "One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is truth, regardless of where it comes from." makes me wonder. Does it bother you that if you decided to apply this principle to another religion, it would validate that particular religion? The implication being that the beliefs validated would contradict some of Mormonism's truths. I don't see how you can make this statement and remain intellectually honest with yourself.
I think that a persons views of Masonry would largely influence their assumptions of Joseph Smith's actions. If someone views Masonry as some evil secret organization then that would make them lean towards condemning Joseph for his associations with it.
ReplyDeleteAlso with regards to the source document. It would certainly be easy to say that since we now know where the Book of Abraham came from we can be sure that it is not the REAL Book of Abraham as it was claimed. But for me I look at it and say, Well I can certainly understand why Joseph claimed what he did. But obviously the book is not written by Abraham and it probably doesn't accurately depict events of Abraham's life(if there even was such a person). So what importance does this book have? I think that will largely depend on the individual. If someone reads the Book of Abraham and doesn't find anything in it they like then I'm not going to say they are wrong for rejecting it. For me personally there are many things within that resonate with me. Besides, Kolob is freaking sweet!(haha. couldn't resist)
My point about the internal consistency was to show that this was not Joseph trying to scam everyone. Joseph honestly believed this was the Book of Abraham; which confirmed his belief in the Abraham story in Antiquities. So now instead of just saying I received the translation and presenting his book to the people. He actually goes through this Egyptian text and glyph by glyph deciphers it in a way that works. So I think this internal consistency of the translation serves to support the idea that Joseph was genuine in his efforts and not trying to pull a fast one. Is it enough by itself? Probably not. But when taken in context of the entire situation it very supportive.
Have you read Don Bradley's research into the kinderhook plates? Basically his argument goes that Joseph saw a symbol on the Kinderhook plates that resembled one from the Egyptian Papers. This led him to believe that these plates were genuine.
This same thing goes much deeper that has preciously believed. But I'm not at liberty to say much more. It's not my research and I'm not going to steal the wind from anyone else's sails.
About the truth thing a mentioned it in my reply to the other post. But more specifically I think that various religions have tuned into various truths in the universe. Now I'm not talking dogmas, I'm talking about truths, both objective and subjective. So rather than the "it's all true or it's not" paradigm, I cherry pick. I take bits and pieces from here and there that resonate with me and I accept them. To me that's what Mormonism is on the most basic level. A society that let's me do that. I found great things in the Book of Enoch, Book of Jasher, and many other books. So if I find something true in Islam; rather than say Opps, I better become Muslim; I say I'll take that. And I incorporate it into my belief system. Do I think others are wrong for finding truth in other religion? No I don't. I believe in allowing all people to worship how where or what they may according to the dictates of their conscience(of course I'll temper that with not infringing upon the life and liberty of others).
I have encountered many people who believe things other than myself. And as long as they are open minded and are actively searching for thing in their lives(not just being a sheeple) then I have no problem. One example is plural marriage. Many people I encounter believe plural marriage in evil. Yet for me I believe it is a good principle. If that is a truth that resonates with them then i believe they should apply it in their lives. And I also hope they will respect my beliefs as well. Are they wrong? Who am I to dictate to another person that what God told them is wrong? I can only speak for myself and my experiences.
I hope that made sense and doesn't read like rambling.
I think you discount how Smith's reputation would be on the line with this book, and so a consistency among the symbols would be a very smart approach. He already found some inspiration (non-spiritually) from Masonry for the content, so he might as well follow some pattern of consistency rather than get found out in a preventable way.
ReplyDeleteBut otherwise, Smith's genuineness can go in different ways. And I do believe he thought he was actually a prophet. But taken into the context of his religious environment (right in the middle of the Second Great Awakening), how else would he interpret all the people who followed him, read the book, believed what he said, had visions of their own, and had visions of his own? These "visions" were very common themes among the religious communities of back then--communities that thought the visions told them how they were the chosen ones and etc.
How many of those communities were the actual chosen people, with the actual source of the truth? I'm sure a lot of them would follow their own creeds, considering many were born form Christianity.
Genuineness only says that he believed what he was doing was through God. History has shown that plenty of people have thought this (the pope is a perfect example). People would follow what the pope because they probably found value in it too (and pretended that was enough to affirm its truth).
As for your views on truth, I want to be sure I understand you before I go on. I understand the cherry-picking and find no fault in it as an action. But are you saying truth is something consistent? or that it changes from person to person? You question how you could tell someone that what God told them is wrong. What's stopping you from questioning whether they actually received the words from God when those words directly contradict the ones you received from God?